At a flag raising ceremony at the Sevmash plant in Severodvinsk on January 10, 2013 the first Project 955 Borey submarine, Yuri Dolgorukiy, was officially accepted for service.

The Navy and Sevmash signed an acceptance act on December 29, 2012, but the ceremony was postponed until today. The submarine that can carry 16 Bulava missiles will be based at the Northern Fleet.

UPDATE 01/11/13: According to Victor Chirkov, the Commander of the Russian Navy, the submarine will spend 2013 undergoing various tests and will not get missiles until January 2014. Chirkov also said that Yuri Dolgorukiy could carry long-range cruise missiles.

Share

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://russianforces.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1397

References to this entry

During the flag raising ceremony at the Yuri Dologorukiy submarine, the first in the Project 955 class, Commander of the Russian Navy reported that the Navy "paid special attention to the torpedo armament [of the new submarine] and its capability...

On September 3, 2013, Yuri Dologorukiy, the lead submarine of the Project 955 Borey project, left the Sevmash plant for the naval base in Gadzhieyvo, where it will join the Northern Fleet. The submarine was officially accepted for service in...

On October 29, 2014 the lead submarine of the Project 955 Borey class, Yuri Dolgorukiy, successfully launched a Bulava missile. The submarine was deployed in the Barents Sea; the warheads were reported to reach their targets at the Kura test...

Thank you. This is very interesting. Especially since Russia never really considered long-range SLCMs covered by its 1992 pledge to remove tactical nuclear weapons from submarines. I still believe that when START and SLCM reporting obligations were in force Russia did not have deployed cruise missiles. But after START, there is not much that would prevent Russia from bringing them back. It looks like SLCMs, if deployed, would have to use SLBM launchers, so they will be counted in New START, but only against the limit of non-deployed launchers.

>It looks like SLCMs, if deployed, would have to use SLBM launchers, so they will be counted in New START, but only against the limit of non-deployed launchers.

What are you talking about, Pavel? SLCMs, if deployed, would obviously be launched from torpedo tubes, similar to S-10 Granat on previous generation subs. There is no counting of anything against anything. How could you possibly launch a 533 mm SLCM out of a Bulava shaft without shipyard modifications anyway? That's a silly idea.

Secondly, PNIs only covered nuclear-armed SLCMs and they were not treaties, just gentleman's agreements. Which means that any current Russian submarine can carry SLCMs with a conventional warhead or deploy nuclear-armed SLCMs in time of crisis (when all handshake agreements are naturally terminated).

Again, this whole SLCM business is nothing new. Current gen subs can carry Granat anyway, just chose not to do so in peacetime. Kalibr is just an upgrade to that.

Seems like a logical conclusion to me. The Oscar-Class (949, 949A) is going away and the tactical capability these boats bring to the Russian Navy needs to be replaced. Both the Yasen-class and Yuri Dolgorukiy-class submarines may be needed to fill the gap.

How long ranged is “long range”? Wasn’t there some protocol in the INF treaty that limited cruse missiles to a range less than 600 kms? Any weapon over that range must be considered a strategic weapon and be counted so. Please correct me, I’m not clear on this at all.

To further add to the discussion, back in August 23, 2003, the US Navy’s Department of the Navy, Strategic Systems Programs [SSP] issued a Request for Information (RFI) to determine the latest plans and programs including technology challenges and proposed solutions for affordable Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (SLIRBMs), including launch considerations and potential payloads. At the time all this seemed rather strange. Why replace Trident with a smaller, shorter range missile? Yet, contracts were issued for work and testing on new engines, missile “avionics”, solid fueled boosters and payloads. In fact, Northrop-Grumman won a contract for some kind of “area suppression payload” in the vein of the old “Assault Breaker” project. Then news of all this faded to the world of “black”. Years later, the news broke of a new version of the USS Virginia Class. Beginning with the USS North Dakota, SSN 784 (scheduled to be commissioned in 2014) and follow-on submarines building will have two large-diameter bow tubes, replacing a dozen 21-inch vertical launch tubes. Such a launch tube could hold a seven-round magazine for Tomahawk cruise missiles or a single SLIRBM. Moreover, Virginia-class vessels planned for production starting in the 2020s are likely to feature the so-called "Virginia Payload Module" extension, which would add four more of the large-diameter tubes and triple the subs' payload capacity.

No, INF only concerned itself with ground-launched cruise/ballistic missiles, which is why Granat SLCM remains in service while Relief GLCM, same missile, was withdrawn. The cutoff was 500-5500 km. All naval missiles were allowed, which is why Ohio SSGNs carry all those Tomahawks.

As for Project 949A, it is being replaced my Yasen SSGN. Some of the Project 949A's may be upgraded to carry the same missile as Yasen in modules similar to VPM, but inclined (designated as Project 949AM), but that project has not gone beyond talks so far.

As for SLIRBM, that was just a preliminary research project. Ohio Replacement RFP was officially issued for 87'' tubes, so that they'll be able to carry Trident D5 in initial stages.

Alexander Stukalin , The 2600 km Range is for Ship launched LACM conventional variant of Kalbir , The Navy Chief recently mentioned the sub launched variant would have a range of 1500 km , likely the need for bigger booster and special warhead would have reduced its range

I don’t have solid intel, but I’ve read/heard that the Dolgoruky was launched with 16 empty missile containers (see commentary by V. Baranetz at Komsomolskaya Pravda at link below). Without the Bulava SLBM, this new submarine is no more than a tourist attraction, a floating Potemkin village. Given the level of corruption within the Russian system, increased armament spending does not always equal increased military capability.http://www.kp.ru/radio/program/4583/

Of course, you’re entitled to your opinion and you may well be proved right. Has an actual Oscar II (949A) been through such a life extension overhaul and returned to the fleet with these “new capabilities” and armaments or is this a future Kremlin project?

Yes absolutely- as far as overhaul and (mild) modernization is concerned. Voronezh was worked on from 2009-2011, and is back in the fleet. Smolensk has taken its place @ Zvezdochka, and should be handed back in Summer 2013, at which point another 949A will take its place. Tomsk is being repaired @ Zvezda, Omsk was repaired there earlier, though I am not sure if there was any modernization or life extension.

There is no need to replace main caliber now, but in the future as Granit life runs out, the boats will be in for a more substantial refit. The Full scope of the modernization is still a question, but Oniks and Kalibr have been mentioned as replacements.